On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 17:39:58 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 17:30:38 UTC, mee6 wrote:
>> I don't think so, I don't want things to break cause I want my code to keep working.
>
> Not all breakages are the same.
>
> Some of the "breakage" I want are places where the compiler accepts invalid things according to the spec. Which means your code is *currently* broken, just the compiler doesn't tell you.
>
> You also need to consider migration paths and if it is forward or backward compatible.

Indeed.

On 5/22/2022 3:37 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Maybe we can bump the priority on the bugzilla issues?

Thanks for providing bugzilla references. They are very helpful when bringing up issues on the n.g.

My plan after ImportC has reached a certain point is to go through every issue on bugzilla marked with the "safe" keyword. (Of course, anyone else can, too.)

One of the issues you posted is marked with "safe", the other wasn't, so I added "safe" to it.

On 5/22/2022 3:37 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> Just on type qualifiers:
>>>   - Transitivity of type qualifier doesn't play nice with template. There is no way to tell the compiler that a `const Tpl!T` actually is a `const Tpl!(const T)`. As a result, no container library is possible and ranges have serious problem when it come to qualifiers too.
>>
>> This needs a lot more fleshing out about what exactly is wrong and why.
>> ...
> 
> Instances of the same struct/class template are independent types without any relationship. Different types of slices (for example) are not.

Illuminating examples, please.


> There is no way to declare a tail-immutable class reference.
> 
> immutable(int)* <- can rebind the reference, can't assign to value
> 
> immutable(Class) <- can't rebind the reference
> Class <- can rebind the reference, can assign to value

Should file an Enhancement Request on Bugzilla.

On 5/22/2022 4:42 AM, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> This has been another issue with D's const from day one. Pull request #3 was an attempt to fix it:
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/3
> 
> 
> You complain that you don't have people at your command. Well, there's plenty of people doing plenty of work.
> 
> You just keep turning us away.

People closing their own PRs means they get forgotten. I didn't close it or turn it away.

The author's comments in it say it is only a partial implementation.

Daniel was the only one to review it. There are many people in the core team.

On 5/22/2022 6:31 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> I wrote DIP, they pretty much got ignored.

Which DIP? When you talk about various issues, it is really really helpful to post links to what you are referring to.


> I reviewed DIP, pointing how they'd lead to the problems we have now, this got ignored too.

Which DIP?


> Honestly, never again.

I can understand your feelings about this. But I simply cannot devote 100% to everything that people bring up. Sometimes you gotta stand up and shout, and sometimes take matters into your own hands.

A lot of D's development comes from people who took matters into their own hands.


> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983

> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2043

We have better tools to deal with 2043 today. Note that dgList exceeds the lifetime of b, and should fail to compile for that reason.

Let's try it (adding import and @safe and updating the code to D2):
----
import std.stdio;

@safe:

void delegate()[] dgList;

void test() {

        foreach(int i; [1, 2, 3]) {
                int b = 2;
                dgList ~= { writeln(b); };
                writeln(&b); // b will be the *same* on each iteration
        }
}
----

> dmd test.c -preview=dip1000
test.d(13): Error: reference to local variable `b` assigned to non-scope parameter `_param_0`

Looks like we can close it now!


> Note the first one is from 2008
> 
> I think i can stop here because the point is made. All of these have long standing bug report for them. Many of these reports are 10+ years old. Several have DIPs.
> 
> The problem here isn't that people aren't reporting these, or aren't writing DIP or whatever. It is that they are told to do so, waste their time doing that and then they get named argument instead.

BTW, the last comment in the bugzilla is from 2018. It hasn't been completely ignored all this time. It also happened to get fixed at some point.

On 5/22/2022 6:31 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983

It's been fixed already. Just nobody closed it.